That's not a particularly helpful answer, Ellis. Ignorance is an unavoidable part of the human condition. One could say, there are only two types of people; those who know they are ignorant and those who don't know they are ignorant. One could also say that those who know they are ignorant are less ignorant than those who don't know they are ignorant.

I'm talking about creating detail that isn't there like the aforementioned orange peel effect that is artefacts from over sharpening. I don't worry about other peoples images so I can carry on with my life without getting anxious about them but wondered what was the thinking behind the phenomenon.

In a sense, you've answered your own question, Mr Smith. The oversharpening you seem to be referring to are artefacts. I don't believe anyone deliberately oversharpens in order to create artifacts, unless perhaps if he's attempting to create an abstract image consisting of exaggerated sharpening artifacts. Anything goes in the name of art.

Any tendency to oversharpen parts of the image where artefacts are not noticeable, or less noticeable, would be due to peoples' general fascination with the continually increasing resolution possible from the most recent developments in digital camera technology.

I think we would also need to define what 'over sharpening' is, what is over sharp for some is good sharpening for another. I remember when canon came out with what they considered was optimum capture sharpening for the 1DsII at the time, USM 300,0.3,0 and the forums were full of people saying just how OTT that amount was. Once we can define what is correct sharpening we can work out who to point a finger at. Until that point and given that like colour it's a matter of taste anyway, perhaps we can just carry on with our lives?

I would believe that objective criteria for sharpening can be established for capture sharpening and print sharpening. E.g. "compensate for high-frequency losses in capture/print with the goal of a flat, wide passband while avoiding excessive noise amplification". This is similar, I believe, to the goals of deconvolution.

It's the same reason that leica and medium format users think that being without AA filter is an advantage, they like fake detail

Not being a printing or sharpening wizard or anything, I've noted that oversharpening the files a bit for my C-prints is beneficial for high PPIs, as the C-print is quite rounded and even it out, but really it only makes a difference on nosing distance so if I'd skip sharpening all-together and just work with global/local contrast it would not make much difference.

It's the same reason that leica and medium format users think that being without AA filter is an advantage, they like fake detail

Not being a printing or sharpening wizard or anything, I've noted that oversharpening the files a bit for my C-prints is beneficial for high PPIs, as the C-print is quite rounded and even it out, but really it only makes a difference on nosing distance so if I'd skip sharpening all-together and just work with global/local contrast it would not make much difference.

I think that was my point, I find artefacts ugly however they are created and why there are those who would volunteer to have such artefacts by shooting a Leica M or Fuji X-MOS sensor escapes me, however I realise that there are many to whom such artefacts are a plus of 'sharpness'. It's just too subjective is it not?

MrSmith

after a very quick look, top right looks fine to me, bottom right is OTT, others are passable but still too much for me personally but possibly fine for their intended use (whatever that is)not got the time to look at the thread.

Sharpening, like saturation, contrast and other parameters seems to be ones where the public wants "larger than life", while some purists wants "realistic" values. Is this not a general social mechanism in which the "masses" want to make sure that their friends get the message, while the elites wants to distinguish themselves from the masses by using more subtle cues that takes another member of the elite to recognize?

after a very quick look, top right looks fine to me, bottom right is OTT, others are passable but still too much for me personally but possibly fine for their intended use (whatever that is)not got the time to look at the thread.

My take is a slow diminution of subtlety in our lives. We see it not only in over-sharpened images but also in highly saturated colors being de rigeur, redder than red sunsets, Foveon blue skies, cars covered with bling, grown men with stupid "little boy" haircuts, women with primary colored lipstick, movies where you know the plot and the ending after the first few frames have clattered past the arc lamp . . . I think I'd better stop now . . .

Why is it that connoisseurs of cinema seems to prefer jumpy, non-realistic 24fps movement, while the general public prefers realistic 48fps+ movement?

Does connoisseurs of still-image photography prefer the realistic(?) sharpening of a flat passband, or the unrealistic aliasing of no OLPF? Or does still-image connoisseurs prefer the aliasing of no OLPF while the general public prefers the artifacts of overdone sharpening?

I think that some people tend to post images immediately after they very quickly made adjustments on their computer, on their cell/mobile/tablet and post it for the world to see. If they would wait a day or even an hour or so then revisit the image with fresh eyes, they probably would make further changes. I think it boils down to a lack of patience. They want more...stronger....and they want it now! They drag some sliders, click a button or two, upload it and they never see it again. They have moved on to their next masterpiece.

"That's not a particularly helpful answer, Ellis. Ignorance is an unavoidable part of the human condition."

It may be an unavoidable condition but it is curable. What we (I am using the collective pronoun to describe the community of who have figured their way of ignorance in this matter) suffer from is that quite often the sharing of the cure (what we know) very often gets bogged down in the technical weeds of the algorithms when trying to explain the hows of why over-sharpening is happening, which just makes the message fly over most people's heads.

The solution needs to be better explained in language ( both words and pictures) that non-engineers can more easily comprehend. Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe have done much of the hard slogging and heavy lifting to move the discussion in a more comprehensible direction.

The solution needs to be better explained in language ( both words and pictures) that non-engineers can more easily comprehend. Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe have done much of the hard slogging and heavy lifting to move the discussion in a more comprehensible direction.

I would tend to agree with that, Ellis. What's missing in this discussion are examples of oversharpened images. One can't get very far with just words when discussing pictures.

My impression is that many pictures that appear oversharpened are actually oversharpened only in certain parts of the image due to a lack of selective sharpening. There is also the issue of monitor size and resolution that can affect the appearance of sharpening. A large but low resolution monitor will display a much larger image at 100% than a small, high resolution monitor, and as a consequence any sharpening artifacts will be magnified on the large, low resolution monitor.

Your screen shots are labeled A,B,C,D. I can not relate this to 2001,2006,2009,2011.

A (bottom right) stands out by the sharpness of the background. Obviously due to smaller aperture, since sharpness in front is roughly the same as on the others.B (top right) has a purple cast, compared to the others, and falls out by thatC (bottom left) and D (top left) look pretty much the same to me.

Why does it matter? An artist or a novice takes images for personal expression, and a photographer takes images for client's pleasure. If viewer does not like it, then viewer be damned (unless viewer is the one paying). So I think the simple answer is that people "oversharpen" because people like it (be they producers or buyers).

In my opinion there is really no right or wrong here. People use a lot of other artifacts like over exposure, under exposure, lens flare, out of focus areas in their images. In fact, out of focus artifact has become so fashionable that we have a name for it; bokeh!

The appropriate question may be what is appropriate sharpening for me on this image.

Your screen shots are labeled A,B,C,D. I can not relate this to 2001,2006,2009,2011.

A (bottom right) stands out by the sharpness of the background. Obviously due to smaller aperture, since sharpness in front is roughly the same as on the others.B (top right) has a purple cast, compared to the others, and falls out by thatC (bottom left) and D (top left) look pretty much the same to me.

So they get 'omg that lens is so sharp' on their 800px jpgs posted on forums?

Really I think it is just the same as the oversaurated pictures, the super tone mapped pictures, the 'sky is darker than the foreground' landscapes, the b&w landscapes with so much contrast they look like the face of the moon, the ambient-3-stops-underexposed flash shots etc.

1) MrSmith, just curious as to why you wouldn't do a small amount of sharpening on your files regardless of lens used

2) While thinking of all the visual scars of some of the outrageously hideous images that gave/has given HDR it's bad rap, it's a scary thought to think that perhaps some people like the garish over sharpening. There's no way that the people who abused HDR couldn't tell that it looked fake. Perhaps they don't mind the over sharpening. There's a lot to be said for taste/bad taste.

3) It's possible that some individuals are using batch processing with settings that should only work for a few of their images and yet are applied to all (for example some of their images are interpolated to a large size and some small jpgs).

4) People are bombarded by overly saturated images in the media all the time and maybe some people think that the sharpening is adding "punch".

5) Lots of people just don't pay attention to details because they can't or don't. A man on a galloping horse as they say.